choose_city_capture

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals the four outcomes but says nothing about their consequences (e.g. that raze destroys the city), whether the choice is irreversible, or what permission/state is required. For a consequential decision tool this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and the enumerable choices. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, and one required param, the description is minimally adequate: it names the action and the legal values but omits the consequences of each option and any ordering relative to city_capture_options. It is enough to invoke but thin on the ramifications of the choice.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no enum defined, so the description meaningfully compensates by listing the valid values (liberate | annex | puppet | raze). The caveat that only the values city_capture_options lists are legal adds useful constraint, though it defers the authoritative list to the sibling.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('decide') and resource ('a captured city') and enumerates the possible choices, so the agent knows this commits one of four outcomes. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling city_capture_options by noting the choices come from that list, though it doesn't spell out the relationship directly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied ('decide a captured city') and it points to city_capture_options as the source of valid values, which hints the agent should consult that first. However there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or statement of prerequisites/ordering beyond the parenthetical reference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.